Trump’s TOP AIDE Makes SHOCK ADMISSION on WAR!!

A very alarming hearing just took place in Congress regarding Donald Trump's invasion of Iran. And some of the questioning in this House of Representatives hearing involved Donald Trump's capacity to give orders to the Department of Defense. And what came out is that it appears Donald Trump lacks the capacity to even give orders to the Department of Defense and that the Department

of Defense doesn't really know what Donald Trump is even talking about most of the time. So the witness who was testifying is a guy named Elbridge Colby. He's the number two at the Department of Defense. In other words, he's Pete Hegseth's right hand. And Colby's official position is undersecretary of Defense for the Department of Defense. And he was grilled and asked a lot of questions

by Republicans and Democrats about the war against Iran and about America's wars throughout the world and America's foreign policy generally. This is the type of stuff that the undersecretary of defense would show up and say, here is what the Trump administration's policy is, or as I would say, the Trump regime's policy is. But what Colby would say is, we believe what Trump is trying to

say, or we interpreted what he meant by this. In other words, the Department of Defense has no clue at any given time what Donald Trump is actually saying, what his priorities are, what the missions are, what the plans are. Instead, they take Donald Trump's social media posts, they take his deranged statements, and they try to interpret interpret it and they carry it out, if you will, kind of like a shadow deep state. Remember the boogeyman that the MAGA Republicans would talk about? People like Elbridge Coby and Hegseth and others, they seem to be formulating

the policy on their own. They're the ones make based on Donald Trump's like social media statements and what he says on Fox, state regime media and elsewhere. So let me show you, for example, where a Republican Congress member by the name of Mike Turner snaps at this number two DOD official, Elbridge Colby,

and says, why do you keep on saying that you interpret Trump to say this? Why aren't you just saying, here's what Trump's plan is? This is very concerning to us. And it's like the one thing here is that the MAGA Republican Congressman's

like getting mad at Colby, which I get it. But if you listen to what's actually happening, what Colby's articulating is, he's got no clue what Trump's even saying as well. That's what's going down here. Play this clip.

And I want to just say, I want to agree with the chairman. What's been so difficult and which is really kind of gross sitting here listening to you is the chairman has said he feels like you're dishonest, right? And you have been so disingenuous every time you answer a question, you feel this need to just continue on in these clarifications that are really very unnecessary. And that these clarifications that you give make us all concerned about your commitment to the truth.

And I want to give you some of those clarifications that make me uncertain and really very concerned about the policymaking within the department. You talk about the Trump administration when people ask you questions about the president's decision making. When we're asking about President Trump, you redefined it as the Trump administration. You say our decisions are aligned with the president, as if you're reinterpreting the president's decision-making. I want to know about the president's decision-making,

not you being your interpretation about being aligned. So tell me you're not trying to make decisions where you're just divining an alignment with the president and interpretation that President Trump is the one making decisions, because up here we're losing confidence as to whether or not Mr. Colby's going into a room and trying to decide whether or not he's aligned with the president or whether or not President Trump's making

decisions because then you have Democratic Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs. Here was her cross examination of Colby. Let's play this clip. Thank thank you are we at war with iran

i think we're in a military action at this point i'll leave it to congress and our lawyers et cetera from the administration to determine exact uh...

okay so and that yesterday uh... the president said we're doing very well on the war front and previously he said we should expect american casualties because quote that often happens in war so is the president wrong when he says we are at war

well i want to add or subtract any of the president wouldn't presume to do so but i know this is a uh... material matter in front of the congress and between administration i'm i'm not the right person to to weigh in on uh...

exactly the criteria okay uh... you said that regime change is not one of the objectives of this military operation is that correct of the u Of the US military campaign at this time

as directed by the president.

OK. If that's the case, can you explain why the first military target of the joint US-Israeli operation was Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei?

My understanding is that's an Israeli strike. I can get you more detail, including this afternoon in the classified briefing.

OK.

Well, President Trump clearly disagrees because he immediately took credit for this saying, I got him before he got me. And shortly after the strikes on Saturday, Trump told the Iranian people bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we're finished, take over your government. It will be yours. This is probably your only chance for generations. And your boss, Secretary Hedges, literally said he made sure that the people responsible in the Iranian regime to try and take out President Trump were on the target list.

And when you're at war, when there are issues of war and peace, life or death, you need clarity. You need leadership. You need directives. You need to give clarity to the American people about what the hell is going on. Right. So I want to bring in right now Mark Hertling. Mark Hertling, retired United States Army Lieutenant General. He also served as the commanding general of the United States Army Europe and the Seventh Army. Mark, it's great to see you. You're also the author of

a new book, If I Don't Return, a father's wartime journal where you reflect on your experience as a major in Operation Desert Storm, writing, if I do not return letters, but understanding difficult war is, but also there was a clearly defined mission in Operation Desert Storm in 1990. So I want to talk about the book in a bit, but I want to talk about how there doesn't seem to be a clearly defined mission right now. I think that's an understatement. You also served as the commanding general of the United States Army, Europe and the Seventh Army, which is important for our audience

to know about your insight into what's going on with Iran. But there seems to just be kind of chaos and winging it. Every day it seems to be like the student who doesn't do their book report who shows up and pretends they did it, except this is life and death, war and peace stuff.

Yeah, that's a perfect example. It is a whole lot of ad hoc-ism in my part. We've seen over this last six days since the conflict started last Saturday, that there have been different definitions of what we're doing this for.

What is the proverbial strategic end state? Now, you can have unbelievably good tactical operations and an operational plan from the military, but when the bombing starts, or stops, excuse me, when the bombing starts, as it always does, what happens next? And I think we've seen many members of the administration kind of scurrying around saying different things that all define different kinds of mission sets for the military. You know, I heard Dan Kane yesterday,

Chairman of Joint Chiefs, explain what was happening very well. He was very professional, very succinct. He was providing an operational plan, who was doing what to who. They did not, during that briefing, by the way, talk about some of the backsliding that we've seen in terms of what Iran has produced. And as a military guy, you always realize that the enemy gets a vote and they will disrupt

your best plans Even if you've got a great military and they have done that to a degree But the biggest thing that concerns me is as you just said, what is the end state? What is the president trying to accomplish? What does iran? Accompany a country that's three times as big as Iraq with 90 million people, almost three times as many as Iraq had, where I fought for three different tours

and in three different periods. You know, what is it gonna look like at the end of the bombing when all the targets have been hit? And there's a very good kinetic plan, but again, just asking the people to rise up and form a new regime

is in my view, ludicrous. I mean, it doesn't happen that way. Things don't happen that way in combat.

Right, and no doubt America's military is by far the most powerful in the world. You hear the Trump regime repeat that over and over again. The most powerful people, you talk about this in the book too, on leadership, you don't need to repeat how powerful you are if you're powerful.

That's kind of a known thing, but setting aside the fact, yes, we know that the US has the best subs and the best airplanes and the best tech. We know we have that, but at some point, air superiority and dropping bombs, to your we have that, but at some point, air superiority and dropping bombs, to your point, you know, that doesn't make the full package of a war. And so the question

ultimately is, and I know you're a logistics guy, after the air bombing, I mean, what happens next? I mean, there are the talks of, you know, we're going to arm this militia group or that militia group and send them in. Also, though, we betrayed some of these militia groups and ethnic groups in the region Trump has, you know, specifically before. Recently in Syria, back in his first regime,

you know, when I'm thinking, you know, he wants the Kurds to go in, I'm also thinking, but didn't you just harm their autonomous zone, you know, when you propped up Jelani and brought him to the White House and the first administration. So talk to us from a logistics perspective though, like what happens next?

I mean, you can't just do everything by air, can you? Yeah, well, I'll correct you a little bit and say I'm not a logistician, I was a tanker. I was a tanker and a cavalryman, but I understand the importance of logistics. Any strategic leader does.

You know that if you forget logistics, if you forget sustainment, you're going to lose any fight. That's concerning to me right now because we've seen mixed, missed messages, not only on the end state, but how much precision munitions we have, both in the offense, striking the targets, and also in the defense, the capability to man the Patriot and the THAAD air defense batteries

that we have spread out all over the Middle East. And we have taken many of those from other countries in the world. What happens when you deplete that sustainment base, the ability to give supplies to the frontline forces, and how does it affect other contingency plans around the world,

like North Korea or Taiwan, or I could name 10 others having been once the war planner on the joint staff. So that's an issue. The most recent thing, which you pointed out, you mentioned the Kurds, and I smiled a little bit because when I was a division commander in northern Iraq in 2007 and 2008, the Kurdish

region was part of our area of operation. And I got to know the Kurds very well. They are a terrific military machine. They're a great culture. They're a wonderful autonomous region. But it is not simply, quote unquote, the Kurds.

There are about eight different political groups inside the Kurdish autonomous zone. They spread from Iran to Turkey, to Iraq, to Syria. They have different desires and their primary desire is to establish a Kurdish state. And that's what they fight for more than anything

else. So when you hear, and I'm writing an article on that right now for the Bulwark, when you hear about the CIA talking to the Kurds as a potential leadership device to establish a new regime within Iran, that's really a fool's errand because they are like 15% of the population. The population of Iran consists of not only the Persians,

but also the Yazidis and the Assyrians and the Chaldeans and about 10 other groups. So, you're talking about asking someone that, a group that America knows as fierce fighters from what they did in against ISIS in 2014 and saying, well, maybe they can take over Iran too. It's just, it's just somewhat shows that there's a lack of understanding of the area we're

fighting in. And it gets back to your point earlier of you've got to do more than just bomb things. You've got to have a plan for post-war. You've got to have an understanding of what could rise up and replace an illicit regime, which was in Iran at the time when we started.

All those things come to play. And it demands planning and really good execution beyond what the military is capable of.

It also seems that one of the things that Trump is already saying he's okay with is someone else from the Islamic Republic still running Iran, the same way that he has said the same thing about, having Delce Rodriguez run it to someone else in the Maduro regime. So how do you even inspire a local population to rise up if you already told them we're gonna support

the people that are killing you?

Yeah, supporting the same people he said a couple of weeks ago were oppressing the Iranian people and he was gonna go in and help them out, which frankly he has not done yet. So that's another factor that's involved. But I gotta tell you, it's fascinating

when you think about what is going on because I think the president and his administration have become enamored with quick strikes, almost special operations force kind of strikes where you go in, you get something done and you're out of there and you let the people

that are remaining on the ground figure it out. When you're talking about this kind of operation in Iran, you're talking seriously about destroying infrastructure, security forces, government and institution. All of that is taking place. Now, to be sure, there's a bunch of civilian Iranians

who are saying they want a new day, they want a better government, but you don't just do a I dream of genie of pulling your arms together, shaking your head and having it appear. It takes a whole lot of work. it takes labor, it takes sacrifice,

and it takes people executing things on the ground beyond just dropping bombs there.

You know, Mark, one of the things that concerns me also is the reports about how comfortable Donald Trump is, you know, with war and how he, and we'll get to the book in a moment, because war's not something that you'd want your commander in chief to just be comfortable with or almost enjoy or take a pleasure in.

He seemed to do, with all of these wars that have taken out, I mean, look, no one's talking about this, but we've got ground troops in Ecuador right now, on the ground right now as we speak, you know, in a joint military operation with a kind of MAGA proxy leader over there in Ecuador and they're running and who knows what the hell, you know, is going on here.

So, you know, he seems to have started, you know, enjoying his sick word, but like the special ops and the people he perceived as alphas, like going in there, you know, to the point where now the decision to go to war last week almost felt impulsive. Like he got a call from Netanyahu who said, I'm going to do it, Donald. And he said, well, I got to do it first. You know, and it's like, that's the opposite. That's the last thing you want. So talk to us about that.

Yeah, there's a phrase that I've heard repeatedly on cable news over the last two days that the president is becoming comfortable with the use of force. And that scares the bejesus out of me. Hey, I've worn the uniform for four decades.

I'm never comfortable with the use of force. It's a scary proposition. Young men and women, America's sons and daughters, get killed. You have to write letters home to parents and loved ones. And quite frankly, things go wrong in war. I mean, there was an old dead theorist by the name of Karl Clausewitz who talked about friction and chance and how, yeah, war is a continuation of politics by other means.

It's by kinetic activity. But when you enter into a war, it never ends the way you think it will end. And it's easy to start and very difficult to finish. And there are things that are going to go wrong because, as we've seen over the last six days,

the enemy gets a vote. They will fire missiles at different locations. They will hit US radar domes and kill American soldiers and hit our allies in the region and shut down energy plants and all things we didn't expect

because we believed we have overwhelming force. But things don't go as planned in war. I mean, when I was commanded in Iraq, multiple times I was in Iraq, there was always a feeling we were taking three steps forward and two steps back.

And the two steps back were always things that we never expected. You know, the car bomb in a place we didn't expect, or the sniper shooting, or the blowing up of a building, or a revolt by a guy named Sater that when things were starting to tamp down, or a civil war between the Shia and the Sunni because a mosque was bombed.

Those are things you can't anticipate. So you not only have to have a plan for both the kinetic operation, which is what's happening now, and the political operation that will follow to kind of sustain thing, but you also have to have a plan for setbacks. The proverbial what if drills, the action, reaction, counteractions kinds of things that the military is never comfortable with, but they plan for. And I'm going to go back to what you said there. It did seem like it was a very presumptuous decision to follow Netanyahu or the Israelis into this fight. And even in the

beginning, there was the desire to beat them to the punch in a preventive war or a war of preemption, those are things that really cause a whole lot of chaos and dysfunction, not only in the military. I just read a piece this morning that said the State Department didn't know much about what was going to happen.

And that's now causing the chaos for bringing people out of the region, the American citizens that are in the various Gulf states. So those are the kind of things you plan for and that you really have to have some kind of execution matrix for for what's going to happen next.

Right. And those are qualities of leadership. So you know, when I read if I don't return to father's wartime journal, which everybody should get, by the way, pre-orders right now, but definitely get it. Yes, it's your reflections in war, your real-time writings in war, your reflections now about it,

but also I think your general musings on leadership, your connections to your two children, your two sons, rather, who are combat veterans,

and your overall reflections on leadership. your connections to your two children, your two sons rather, who are combat veterans,

and your overall reflections on leadership. Now, of course, the day-to-day blocking and tackling of running a network like the Midas Touch, I got to talk about news. Here's what happens, here's what happens. I try to draw these connections, but I try to focus on these principles, values, principles that are really important in the reporting. And one thing I talk about is leadership. And to me, it doesn't matter if you're a Republican, you're a Democrat, you're an independent, the idea of how a leader carries themselves,

how a leader behaves, how a leader mentors, how a leader behaves in private, not just in public, but all the nuances, controlling it, knowing that people are watching, knowing the example you set to future generations. And so much of why I've gotten involved in politics,

even though I don't like politics, is frankly leadership, because I feel betrayed at the highest level of leadership and saying, that's just not how I grew up, I don't know what is this? And we need to break this cycle of glorifying

whatever this is going on in DC, because that's just not leadership. I don't care about the politics. So talk to us about that before we go.

Yeah, the book started, you know, I'll tell you the quick story of the book. I wrote this journal to our eight and 10 year old son the first time I went into combat in 2000, or I'm sorry, 1990 and 91 for Desert Storm. And, you know, when I came back, they were still the age, they didn't wanna read this reflective journal entry.

So I threw it in a footlocker, our youngest son pulled it out about three years ago and typed it up, he's now 40 years old. He typed it up and gave it to me at Christmas two years ago. And he said, dad, it was obvious what you were doing, you were preparing us in case you didn't come home.

You wrote this thing for us to help us grow as young men." He said, but now you've got five grandsons and two granddaughters. Write more for them and write more for others about leadership and family and sacrifice and values and character and the kinds of things that you just talked about. And I don't think he thought I was going to do it, but I dove into this project and after every reflection in the book about things that I was trying to teach them to be as they

grew up, I wrote a journal entry or a reflection after that journal entry that were multiple pages long. And it runs the gamut from character and leadership all the way to military stuff like MREs and what we were doing when combat started and what we did post-combat when we saw prisoners and torture chambers of the Iraqis and things like that.

So it really is a unique journey, I think, through not just Desert Storm, but then later deployments where the wars were very different. You know, Desert Storm was a conventional fight, tank on tank, that kind of thing. In 2003, it was a complex encounter insurgency. In 2007, when I went back again, it was a counterterrorism

fight. Each one of them showed different things and how the army had evolved, but it all depended on an ever-emerging concept of leadership. And I'll hit one more thing because it drives the point you were just saying. When I went to war in 1990, it was personal. I mean, I had a personal fear. I had an anxiety. We were told we were going to suffer 50% casualties, so I thought we weren't coming back. Luckily,

we did. But it was all about, you know, boy, I want to keep living. I want to have another beer sometime. I want to ride bikes with my wife and my kids, those kind of things. But when I went to war the second and third time, it was more about the responsibility and accountability for the soldiers under my command. It was how do I take care of them and make sure they come back? So your life shifts based where you are, and it's really all about what you've been asked to do and how you hold responsibility for being, truthfully, a good person.

Someone with value, someone with character, someone who understands each other, someone who doesn't have hubris. I end the book, Ben, with a summary of something called MacArthur's Prayer. And if your listeners have never seen this, I'd suggest they Google it. And it's General MacArthur's prayer about his sons,

what he hopes they will be. And it really centers around the things you were just talking about. It's a beautiful prayer, and I kind of elaborated on it based on experiences and the things I talk about in the book.

Well, everybody, I want you to check it out. Mark, so great to see you. Get your pre-order right now. It's out next week. If I don't return, a's wartime journal, check it out. Thanks Mark. Hey, thanks man. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me on too. Oh, we'd love to have you back. Everybody. Keep doing good things. Keep doing good things.

All right, man. Subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers.

Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our sub stack at MidasPlus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad free episodes of our Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our sub stack at MidasPlus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad free episodes of our

podcasts and more exclusive content only available at MidasPlus.com.